Israeli PM apologises over Commando raid on Turkish vessel.

At 1400 hours, on May 30th 2010,  a flotilla of six vessels, carrying aid for the people of Gaza sets sail from Turkey. Among them are two US flagged ships, one Kiribati-flagged vessel, a Greek freighter and it’s passenger craft, and the Turkish cruise liner, Mavi Marmara.

The flotilla never reaches Gaza. All vessels are seized by the Israeli Navy, who launch a dozen naval vessels, four hours later at 1800. Their orders are to stop the flotilla from reaching Gaza and to force the ships to alter course to the Israeli port of Ashdod. Israel’s naval commando unit – Shayetet 13 are also dispatched, armed only with 9mm sidearms in leg holsters. They expect little resistance.

The Israeli Navy is preventing the flotilla from reaching Gaza to enforce a naval blockade, which has been in place on the Gaza Strip on January 3rd, 2009.

According to a Reuters article, which features a timeline of events, it states that at 0100 hours, the Israeli vessels reached the flotilla. “In international waters, some 120 km (75 miles) west of Haifa, the foreign skippers ignore calls in English through loudhailers for the ships to turn around or be escorted to Ashdod.”

Most of the vessels in the flotilla are boarded by Shayetet 13 soldiers with little or no resistance.

However, aboard the Mavi Marmara, things go from bad to worse. The vessel is boarded by soldiers who fast-rope down from helicopters, and board from the sea using Zodiacs. What follows is utter chaos, and there are two sides to what happened over  the next few perilous minutes.

On one side, the Israeli military and government say that their soldiers were attacked by the activists, who used clubs and other weaponry, and even stole a gun from one of the first aboard. Fearing for their lives, some of the Shayetet-13 soldiers opened fire using their 9mm sidearms. Minutes later, nine activists are dead.

However, on the other side of the argument, the surviving activists say that the soldiers boarded the vessel and began shooting as soon as they hit the deck. Opening fire and indiscriminately killing nine of their fellow activists, eight of which were Turkish nationals.

Three days ago, amid encouragement from visiting US President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologised to Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a telephone conversation between the two heads of state. According to the Jerusalem Post, Erdogan had previously rejected any proposed reconciliation between the two countries.

Though ties between Turkey and Israel remain strained and frail, perhaps this apology from Netanyahu will reopen a door for a peaceful acceptance of what happened, and a step forward for both Israel and Turkey.

US Marine shoots two, and self at Quantico Marine Corps base.

A US Marine has killed two colleagues and himself at a Marine Corps base in Virginia, days after an accident at Hawthorne Army Depot, which claimed the lives of seven Marines.

That incident was a training exercise that went wrong when a mortar shell exploded in the tube. This however, was murder. According to the LA Times, “the three dead Marines were permanent personnel assigned to the Officer Candidate School at the base.”

Two of the dead were male, and one a female.

According to the Washington Post, which quotes a Marine spokesman at the Pentagon as saying, “This was an isolated incident. At no point was this suspected to be a mass shooting.” The Washington Post also states, “The Marines are still trying to confirm a motive but are investigating whether some of the dead may have been romantically involved.”

A love-triangle certainly is a possibility, but that’s all idol speculation and we may never know the true motive behind this, no reports that I’ve read mention any kind of suicide note, or clues of any kind as to why the suspect may have carried out this atrocity.

The bodies were not all found at the same time, with one being found around 10:30p.m., while the other two – including the body of the shooter, were found later, although a time isn’t specified.

The Washington Post quotes Base Commander, Colonel David Maxwell as saying, “The first 911 call came in at about 10:30p.m., but no shots were heard. At 11p.m., the base used a notification system called “giant voice” to put Quantico on lockdown.” Although various news agencies have raised the question as to whether there was a standoff with authorities, the Colonel denied these reports.

The Quantico base was one of several military targets to come under fire, literally,  in late 2010. Yonathan Melaku – an Ethiopian naturalised US citizen and Marine Corps Reservist, fired upon the Quantico base, the south side of the Pentagon and three other military installations with a high-powered rifle.

He was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison for his actions. However, according to WTOP – a Washington news station, Yonathan Melaku was caught at Arlington National Cemetery carrying ammonium nitrate in his backpack, along with references to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Thankfully, no one was injured in the shootings – as the buildings were unoccupied at the time.

Similar incidents at US military bases include the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009. The court-martial for the sole suspect in the shooting, a US Army psychiatrist, Major Nidal Hasan, is due to begin at the end of May.

The shooting at Fort Hood claimed the lives of twelve service personnel, and one civilian member of the Department of the Army. A further thirty were injured in the attack. According to a BBC article from 2009, which outlines a timeline of events – “At 1330 local time, a U.S. solder, dressed in army uniform walks into the Soldier Readiness Center,  armed with two non-military issue pistols, including one semi-automatic.”

Ten minutes later, thirteen are dead and thirty are injured. Major Hasan is injured as those inside the Soldier Readiness Center return fire. He is now paralysed from the waist down as a result.

According to Sky News, the judge in the court-martial has refused to allow Major Hasan to plead guilty. Under US Army regulations, a judge cannot accept a guilty plea for any charges that carry the death penalty as a punishment.

Although those aforementioned were terrible acts of murder, and this most recent one is a terrible tragedy, questions, I feel, have to be asked.

My questions are: Just how easy is it for a member of staff at a US Military base to access a weapon? While I understand that weapons are necessary for those manning the entrance gates, and base security, but I have not seen a mention that any of those dead were members of base security.

So, does every soldier on the base carry a weapon? If so, why? And if not, how easy is it for a soldier on-base who doesn’t carry a weapon as part of his job, to obtain a weapon?

Assuming that all weapons are stored in an armoury on the base, and each person who wishes to sign out a weapon must do so at the start of his shift/exercise, and then return the weapon at the end of their shift/exercise. How was the suspect able to get his hands on a weapon, assuming, of course, that he was not part of base security and/or on a training exercise. Which, given the time of the incident, him being on an ex. is highly unlikely – unless of course it was a night ex.

What are your thoughts, readers?

US Democrat Senate drop assault weapons ban proposal.

So, the Democrats have dropped their proposal for a ban on assault weapons…

According to BBC News, “Democratic leader Harry Reid made the decision, saying that the bill would not get enough votes.” Now, this is a requirement in US Law – a proposed bill has to go through the Senate, which has one hundred seats, and requires a majority (51 out of 100) to pass the Senate and move to a conference committee.

This bill requires sixty out of one hundred votes to be submitted to that conference committee. Harry Reid believes that the said bill would not get the necessary majority. So, why would it not get the necessary majority?

Just how bad would it be to ban assault weapons in the United States? It would mean that such types of weapons are less accessible to the general public, thereby decreasing the risk of shootings such as the Newtown school shootings in December, and the Aurora movie theatre last year.

According to thedailybeast.com, James Holmes was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun, and a Glock 40 semi-automatic pistol.

Various news and web reports that I’ve read state that Holmes had a one hundred round drum magazine. According to one blog – “The Moderate Voice”, which states, “it had a 100 bullet drum and even if semi-automatic could theoretically kill 60 people a minute, murder another 40 people in the next minute before running out of ammo and another drum added. Then another 60 dead in one minute, another 40 in the next minute.”

That is… insane. That’s a potential of one hundred people every two minutes (assuming the weapon doesn’t jam or the barrel doesn’t melt from the constant spewing of rounds).

Not speaking from experience, but I’d imagine that with such a large magazine capacity, it wouldn’t take an expert marksman to kill all those people. One spray of the hundred round magazine, compounded by the fact that Holmes had deployed tear gas canisters and smoke grenades into the theatre prior to unleashing hell, well, the kill-zone is immense and the killing potential is spine-chilling to think about.

Surely, in order to prevent such atrocities being committed, the United States Government must act. Steps are being taken however, but unfortunately not on a national governmental level. According to ABC News, the State of Colorado’s governor, John Hickenlooper, today signed a piece of legislature which, “expand background checks on gun purchases and limiting the size of ammunition magazines”.

So, why don’t all the other States just fall into line and do the same – Colorado has taken a promising first step, why not follow? Pro-gun lobbyists will argue that it is their “right” to own a firearm and that their rights would be infringed upon, should the United States Government ban firearms completely.

Let’s examine this for a second.

My first thought is to say, “ARE YOU SERIOUS!?” But once I’ve calmed down, had a cuppa, and thought it over, I’ll examine the text and give you my opinions.

Okay, so the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as thus: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“A well regulated Militia” – the United States military.

“Being necessary to the security of a free State,” – Really? NECESSARY is it? Is it really necessary for every man and his dog to have a weapon in order to ‘preserve the security of the free State’. I think not. That’s what you have an Armed Forces for. People who are trained, and retrained and tested and constantly assessed while being trained, on the use of their weapon system. Not to mention developing a respect for their weapon system, maintaining and cleaning it at every opportunity – a jam might cost their life, or the lives of their fellow soldiers.

Necessary to the security of the a free State, eh? Just how afraid are you of your fellow man if you feel the NEED to carry around a full automatic assault rifle. And what does that say about society – that your fear of your fellow man who means you no harm at all, is so strong that you have to arm yourself against him.

“Right of the people to keep and bear arms” – A right to bear arms? Take those rights away and then what? Pandemonium? Rioting in the streets? Or perhaps a better, more peaceful country. One which doesn’t have massacres and shootings with such frequency… One in which people aren’t afraid of their fellow man, or at least aren’t afraid enough to NEED to protect themselves against him with anything more than their fists, or certainly something far less deadly than a gun.

Perhaps the answer the problem isn’t to control the guns, perhaps it’s to fix that mentality – one which is seemingly moulded into the minds of the pro-gun lobbyists. “Own a gun and keep your family safe from matey next door because he’s a bad man and will one day snap and murder you and everyone in your home.” Excuse me, but, erm. NO! Not even for a nanosecond is that even in the same postcode as the truth.

Truth is, buddy next door isn’t a nutter whose going to murder your entire family. But if he was, giving him access to fully automatic assault rifles is a sure-fire way to stop him from carrying out those murders. Oh yes, for sure. Arm him against everyone around him just in case they turn out to be murderers.

A society of fear has been created. And that mentality of fearing everyone around you – because they’re all out to get you and you must arm yourself against them, that must change.

But to ban guns in their entirety, would be a good start and a step in the right direction to curbing the mentality of ‘must-own’.